Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]It appears that the consensus it that it is worth 30k or less. More for prima donna stay at home parents.[/quote]
Try to find someone who will take care of your kids seven days a week, and take care of your house, pay bills, manage all of your family’s business, etc. for $30K/year. You can’t even get a teenaged babysitter to work just 40 hours/week for that money…and that’s just for keeping an eye on the kids. Good luck with that, whiner.[/quote]
CAR – again you suggest that working parents don’t do any parenting on weekends and evenings. I am largely sympathetic to your POV until you pull that crap.
If you are promoting the value added to the family of the choice to be a stay at home parent you need to compare it for the hours you would be at work. NOT 24×7.
As someone who worked – I was a full time parent from when I walked in the door in the evening, till I left in the morning, and 3 days of the weekend 24×3. (For non part timers it would be 24×2.) I managed to juggle sleepless nights because I was breast feeding – and even toted the breast pump to work for two kids… one didn’t wean till 18 months… Which meant I had a baby literally glued onto me from when I walked in the door… That time COUNTS as parenting. Yet you claim that only SAHPs get credit for after work hours parenting.
And I managed to take care of the house, pay the bills, and take care of all of the family business – including dealing with renters, etc.
Lets stick to a 45 hour week comparison. (To allow commute time and a quick lunch.) Even parents that work outside the home manage to parent their kids and pay bills during their non-work hours. Some even clean, do laundry, grocery shop, and invest during their non-work hours.[/quote]
I’ve NEVER claimed that wage-earning parents don’t have any parenting responsibilities. I have no idea why you keep suggesting this. There is a value for what they do, just as a SAHP’s work has value. If the SAHP’s contribution is $15/hour for domestic work, the contribution of the wage-earner’s domestic work is also worth $15/hour.
And, as noted in the quote you’ve used, above, and in my post to scaredy, I’m not telling people to price this labor at 24 hours, 365 days/year.
Even hiring a teenaged babysitter (not nearly as qualified as many SAHPs, nor someone who will accomplish much outside of simply keeping an eye on the kids), it would cost over $30K/year if they make $15/hour (the going rate for a teenager to watch three kids in our neighborhood…one who does NOTHING else). That person would not be available on call (as a SAHP is if there is an emergency, or when the other spouse has to travel or be away for work), would not be taking kids to all of their activities and appointments, helping with all of their schoolwork, doing the laundry and cleaning, shopping, etc. If you were to find someone who would do all of these things for $15/hour, it’s highly unlikely they would stick around for more than a few months, if that.
Like I’ve said, a SAHP will do it for “free” with the understanding that they will have financial security in exchange for these services. If you were to inform them that they would be abandoned whenever the wage-earning spouse got tired of them, or when s/he didn’t need their services anymore, it’s highly unlikely that any of them would continue working under these conditions.
And if the wage earning parent(s) are gone from the house and children, somebody else is taking care of those things — these services are being outsourced. Even if a grandparent is willing to do it for free, there is an opportunity cost involved on their part. This work is never “free,” as somebody is always going to have to pay or sacrifice something in order to get it done.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
the project of all the housework, the goal if you will, is to produce children. that’s the product of all this work.
and perhaps that has a negative net value to society.
like an enterprise that tans leather and dumps lots of toxins and destroys a river. they made some leather, yeah, but on balance, the value to society was negative.
making more people isa negative, probably at this point in time, at least from my negative perspective on the earth’s carrying capacity, global warming our general impending demise.
we should probably be PAYING for the right to reproduce. or taxed on it anyway.
so Im not persuaded that this venture of producing raising and caring for children is worth antyhing, to society at least. it’s obviously worth something to each of us, as we wouldnt do it if we werent into it.
[/quote]
Ask Japan, or any other country with a declining/stagnant population, about that one.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]im not saying that these things dont have value…to us …as individuals…just that they have no commerial value,just like i cannot price what it is to have sex with my wife.
sure we could contract out that servive. i could be paying escorts to have sex with me.
but that’s kind of ridcuolus right, to say my wife is producing a dolalr value equivalent of what the escort would ahve been paid?
that that is a form of “savings”
to say that this work is not “valued” because we don’t put a price on it is, in my view, kind of missing the point.
this is personal life.
it’s not a markeptlace.
it is based on irrational love an d affection.
sure it’s a shitty deal. love is a shitty deal for everyone involved.
it’s nuts!
it’s not subject to rational whims and efficient pricing.[/quote]
Again, that “love and affection” stuff is used to mask the real value of these services. While married, a spouse might be willing to do all of those things because s/he believes that there is a binding contract (commitment for life — service in exchange for security), but I can assure you that if you were to inform the SAHP that you would be abandoning them after 5, 10, 20 years…they would no longer perform these services for free. Not even close.
As stated before, the market rate for these services is easily ascertained. Just contact an agency and ask them how much it would cost to get a full-time nanny (or nannies) to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Specify that you want this nanny to help with the cooking, cleaning, shopping, run errands, take kids to appointments/activities, etc. Again, this would still not nearly as much as what a typical SAHP would do, but you can at least get some estimates. Stop acting like this is difficult to value; it’s not. And tell them you want someone who will commit to doing it for over ten years…since you don’t want to traumatize Johnny with unnecessary transitions (it might be easy to find someone who will do it for a few months, but VERY difficult to find someone who will commit to many years of doing this service).
Participant[quote=Blogstar]It appears that the consensus it that it is worth 30k or less. More for prima donna stay at home parents.[/quote]
Try to find someone who will take care of your kids seven days a week, and take care of your house, pay bills, manage all of your family’s business, etc. for $30K/year. You can’t even get a teenaged babysitter to work just 40 hours/week for that money…and that’s just for keeping an eye on the kids. Good luck with that, whiner.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F
The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell
It’s nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.
Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!
I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.[/quote]
I’m fairly familiar with Warren Farrell. He’s no feminist. NOW is strongly opposed to much of what he preaches (they parted ways years ago). His views completely ignore the different biology and hormones of men and women. He’s one of the most powerful forces behind the “Second Wives/Fathers’ Rights” movement that seeks to take away any of the few remaining safeguards provided to women (or men) who give up everything — especially wage earning — in order to care for their families.
And here’s an article quoting him on his research that finds that most people in incestual relationships have a positive experience. He states that the reason girls don’t like having their fathers or other male relatives rape them is because:
“Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”
…page 4
http://nafcj.net/taboo1977farrell.pdf
Is it any wonder that NOW disagreed strongly with his push for father custody or full 50/50 custody arrangements, irrespective of who was more responsible for the child-rearing during the marriage, and irrespective of the age of the child (including breastfeeding children)?
He goes on to say this:
“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”
[page 6, from above link]
He also claims that many children who accuse their fathers of sexual or physical abuse in custody cases are really “victims” of PAS — Parental Alienation Syndrome. Gee, I wonder why.
———
Here he is defending date rape:From “The Myth of Male Power”:
“If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying.
“Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.
“We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
Warren Farrell quotes: What is their context?
by in MensRights…………………….
“Highly regarded,” indeed.
Participant[quote=UCGal]
I am an engineer because of feminism. I remember being told by a professor that I was a waste of a seat that could be filled by a male. (Yes – I reported him to the dean and he was forced to apologize to me and the other 2 women in the class.) I was told by a manager at an internship that he felt the internship should have been offered to a male student – he assumed I was like his daughter, at college to get the “MRS” degree. He also “encouraged” me to wear skirts to work, despite the fact that the job required climbing poles on top of buildings to retrieve the weather instrumentation for calibration. Feminism made these guys obsolete. I am proud to have the label “feminist” assigned to me because it suggests that I believe that women AND men should have all choices available – and should be compensated equivalently.
[/quote]
Wanted to add that I also have my own discrimination story. Back when I worked in the corporate world (a group of related companies, mostly tech-related), I had worked my way up to management after a number of years. At the time, I had the highest level of education of the managers at my level, and had the longest time on the job with this group of companies. I was the only one to have worked for four of the companies, as they moved me from one company to another, and one department to another in order to troubleshoot inefficiencies and investigate a number of problems (I was able to improve efficiency and accuracy in every department, as well as make a number of other improvements); I was the only employee in any of the companies to ever be used in this way. And there were a series of events that proved my level of honesty and integrity, which they highly valued. I had experience in domestic and international sales, import/export, accounting, and operations. I was also involved in designing our business software because I knew how all of the different operations related to one another — the software company tried to hire me away from them. And when we had any kind of audit, I was either put in charge, or heavily involved, even when it was totally unrelated to my job/position — I was usually covering the work that should have been done my these other managers, but even they admitted that I was better at getting these things done right, and I was usually there at their request. I could go on, but there was no question that I was the most highly valued of the managers at my level. None of the other managers came close.
I was the only female at my level, out of ~5 managers. After awhile, I found out that all of the other managers were making more than I was. When I asked about the reason, my boss said, “because they’re men and they have families to provide for.” They offered me more after that, but I realized the deck was stacked against me. I quit about a year after that and went into teaching (and took a huge cut in pay) where everyone is paid equally, based on the same requirements, and everything is fully transparent…though that’s not the only reason I changed careers.
Oh, and I also have the job application that my mom filled out to work for IBM back in the late 50s/early 60s. They asked about the woman’s age, height, weight, marital/family status, etc. Yeah, we’ve come a long way, but we shouldn’t overshoot, and we should NEVER disparage those who make traditional choices. There is nothing wrong with being a woman, and unpaid “women’s work” is not inferior to wage earning.
So, I totally get the desire to have equal pay for equal work, and there is no question in my mind that women should have equal opportunities and access to positions of power, both in the corporate and in the political world (and men should have the right to care for their families, as well). But that’s not the issue here.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=Blogstar][quote=njtosd][quote=Blogstar]Little girl to little boy, show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Young lady to young man, show me your career and I’ll show you my mine, (see double entendre)[/quote]
I may have lost my funny bone, but you have some issues with women.[/quote]
LOL! Of course I do! I used to have more.[/quote]
Not sure if you have a daughter – that always seems to soften men up who have woman issues.[/quote]
It sure does! I wish every man could have at least one daughter (though I’ve known some men who totally ignore their daughters and **clearly** favor their sons, which always makes me extremely sad…and angry). The world would probably be a whole lot nicer if men had daughters to love.
I believe both Russ (Blogstar) and scaredy have all sons. We have all daughters. Probably explains a lot about our perspectives regarding these men vs. women issues.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter]Yes, you do. :)[/quote]
I cannot imagine living a life without alcohol.[/quote]
It definitely helps to smooth out the rough edges, I’m afraid.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi]The very idea of imputed income as you put it CAr, is just weird.
Value is the what the market will pay, no more, no less.
More kids, more work = more income/savings? sounds ludicrous.[/quote]
Imputed income is a tax concept. Take a look back at my earlier post on this matter. It is particularly discussed in terms of real estate but it is just an interesting concept in terms of what this thread is addressing[/quote]
Yes, I realize that.
But CAr renter implies that all the work done around the house is income/savings.[/quote]
Because it is. Read the links I’ve provided; you’ll get a better understanding of what I’m talking about. All of these jobs can be done by hiring a third party. The value of that work can be fairly easily ascertained by looking at what it would cost to outsource all of this work. It doesn’t matter who does the work; the work still has a monetary value, just as installing your own solar panels, or fixing your own car has a monetary value.
And with all due respect, Brian, you have *no idea* how much work is involved when taking care of a family. It is nothing at all like tidying up after yourself as a single person; there is absolutely no comparison, whatsoever.
Participant[quote=UCGal]Ok – I want to clarify a few things.
I think a family’s choice to have a single earner and SAHP is a fine choice. I think a family’s choice to have two working parents is also fine. That’s the more common feminist view – the opportunity for choice.
I am an engineer because of feminism. I remember being told by a professor that I was a waste of a seat that could be filled by a male. (Yes – I reported him to the dean and he was forced to apologize to me and the other 2 women in the class.) I was told by a manager at an internship that he felt the internship should have been offered to a male student – he assumed I was like his daughter, at college to get the “MRS” degree. He also “encouraged” me to wear skirts to work, despite the fact that the job required climbing poles on top of buildings to retrieve the weather instrumentation for calibration. Feminism made these guys obsolete. I am proud to have the label “feminist” assigned to me because it suggests that I believe that women AND men should have all choices available – and should be compensated equivalently.
Now – back to the childcare and budget and work vs stay at home. I’m a numbers gal. When I had my first child I was able to negotiate a 3 day work week. That was the perfect compromise for me. My husband also dropped down to 4 days a week, so we only had our son in an in-home daycare 2 days a week. The daycare was with a friend who was a SAHM who we were the only client of. It was a win win – and comparable care to what my son got from me.
When pregnant with my second son, and in a different state than the first daycare provider I made a spreadsheet to figure out what the best financial options were. 2 kids, one in a “2s” room, one in an infant room is pricey. I think we paid $26k/year for both of them during two expensive years while the youngest was in the infant room. That dropped significantly when they were out of diapers. This was Kindercare – not the cheapest option, not the most expensive. The parents I met there were definitely professionals: lawyers, doctors, Phd chemists and biologists, engineers like myself, corporate managers.My spreadsheet confirmed that we would still be ahead, financially, if I returned to work. And it was more than 30cents on the dollar. We also had columns for nanny, in-home daycares, and for both options of stay at home parents. (I made more than DH at the time plus provided the benefits.) One of the factors that played into my continuing to work was the fact that engineers, MALE or FEMALE, become “stale” if unemployed for a few years. The only way around that is to get a graduate degree during the parenting break, to justify current skills. I’ve seen guys get burned by this same gap – it’s not a problem just for mommy-track women.
For us – it came down to life balance vs income. I continued to be part time until I retired. Part time options happened because of feminism, also. At least at my employer… it was women pushing for family balance – and then DADs taking advantage of it. In the late 90’s and early 2000’s Motorola consistently got awards for being “mommy friendly”.
And to reaffirm BG’s point. I brought my lunch to work – saving a fortune. As an engineer I could wear jeans or crops and flip-flops to work. (And did) Even if I had customer meetings a skirt or slacks and blouse was more than adequate. I never had to wear a suit outside of job interviews. (Legal and Banking professions are different in that respect.)
At this point – I’ve chosen to be home with the kids full time. I’m calling it retirement. I can afford it because I didn’t hire outside help to take care of my household… brought my lunch… never spent a fortune on clothes. My part time salary was under $100k – but I was still able to save a lot, pay off my mortgage, and still have time to coach my kids FLL team and cheer them on in basketball and baseball.
You have made your choice to be a stay at home parent. That’s a great choice for your family. I made a choice to continue to work. That worked for me and my family. Feminism promotes these kind of choices. But families MUST consider the financial impact of their choices – regardless of what choice they make. You should make the choice with open eyes.[/quote]
I appreciate your story, UCGal, and agree with everything you’ve said. My problem isn’t with you nor with your version of feminism. My problem is with BG’s version of feminism…where choice is NOT AT ALL on their agenda. Not only that, but they have pushed the message that women are no more than men with breasts; that childbearing, child-rearing, and homemaking are not valuable or worthy of any sort of recognition, credit, or respect. They are perpetuating the myth that only “men’s work” (paid labor) is valuable, and that women contribute little to nothing in their traditional roles. That is the antithesis of genuine feminism that would seek to improve women’s lot in life.
Some of us do NOT have the same choices that you and your husband have had, for a variety of reasons; but we have other options that work best for us. As a fellow numbers person, we have run the numbers, and it was very obvious which option would work best for us, just from a financial perspective. We also considered what we wanted for our family in the short, medium, and long term. We discussed all of these things at great length before and during our engagement. Mr. CAR was the one who chose the SAHP option, as I told him I would either be childless and work outside of the home, or have children and work inside the home…the choice was 100% his. This discussion happened **before** we were even engaged.
In our case, I could have gone part-time, but there was no way my DH would have been able to do this, not that he wanted this option in the first place. But my pay would have been so low, we would have been one of those families who would be *paying* in order for me to work outside of the home (the negative income thing). We also knew we didn’t want to send our kids to public school (just our personal choice, not judging people who choose other options…I know BG is going to spout off about this), and private school is too expensive, so we opted to homeschool, which is a nice compromise that has worked exceedingly well for our family.
We also have very complex scheduling issues, and my being home, and homeschooling — having a completely flexible schedule — is the only way we could get any reasonable family time together. All of our decisions were calculated after a lot of thought, running the numbers, and taking many other variables into consideration. And in addition to giving up my job, I had to move to a different city/county in order to be with my husband, so gave up all of my long-term friends and my professional networks in order to accommodate his work and lifestyle. And San Diego has a horrible job market for those outside of telephony or biotech (I was not in either).
To say that people like myself are getting a “free ride” is absurd and incredibly offensive. SAHPs do a tremendous amount of work, and this work is incredibly valuable to society, even though it is unpaid labor. To suggest otherwise is totally ignorant of the facts, and it perpetuates the denigration of women. I’ve bitten my tongue on many occasions while BG goes off on one of her anti-woman diatribes, but her posts here were the straw that broke the camel’s back. I will no longer stay silent when she makes these attacks.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?[/quote]
Publicly funded suggests that whatever political party was in power of those pubic funds would have a fair amount of control over the message. And who gets to decide that something is “fair”? Both CNN and Fox (at least) claim to be unbiased – ha! I agree that it would be great if there was some way for candidates to be presented without the support of special interests. I just don’t see any way of doing it. The special interests are very motivated to exert control (I vote as an independent, by the way, so I see special interests on both sides of the political divide) and they’re like bugs – they will find a way in one way or another.[/quote]
When I say “publicly funded,” I mean that it’s paid for by public funds, but not controlled by politicians. And ALL candidates and issues would have to have equal access and equal time. No parties would control it, and no money could control it. It would have to be 100% transparent and the people in charge would be public employees, not public officials, who are fully accountable to the public.
But I would agree with you that they (special interests) are like bugs and that they would find a way in. I’ve only been involved in a tiny little sliver of the political world, and it’s been very obvious from my relatively minor experiences that special interests are endemic to politics…things are essentially controlled by special interests. There are too many back doors, and even if we were to officially get money out of politics, those interest would still find a way to get in (offer jobs to spouses, friends; favors through third parties, dirty money, etc.). But we definitely need to do something about the corruption of our government.
But has there ever been a government that was not corrupt? And if there was one that came close, how long did it last?
ParticipantMessed up. This is a dup, but meant to add the bolded part below.
[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]…
The younger women are smart enough to look at the experiences of these women instead of following the rhetoric of the feminists who have destroyed the family unit, made women and children even more vulnerable, and denigrated the very important work that women have traditionally done. May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
At least the feminists are self-extinguishing as fewer of them have children; and when they do, it’s often one or (maybe) two. The feminist movement cannot die soon enough.[/quote]
Wow. I don’t know that I am anything that ends in -ist. I guess I’m somewhere between CA Renter and BG. I worked full time until I had kids, was a stay at home mom and now I’m a PT working mom and so far our family unit has not been destroyed. I am probably what would be considered highly educated (MS, JD) but my mind didn’t turn to mush when I was home with the kids and, frankly, I had a lot of fun with them. Sooner than I think, they will be at college and I want to be working when they are, as otherwise I will be bored and will fixate on whatever they are doing. They say I do that already. Live and let live – my favorite moms are the ones who are not sure whether they’ve taken the right path. The ones who are sure they are right always puzzle me.[/quote]
You and I are not far apart at all. If you look back at my posts, you’ll see that I’ve stated that every situation is different, and each family needs to decide what works best for them…that there is no black and white. What I detest is the denigration of women and their *very valuable* contributions to society.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s fair. Even assuming they’ve hurt more than they harmed (which I don’t agree with). They were and are doing what they thought was best for women.Obviously women, to paraphrase you, have been getting screwed for millenia. (Insert your own joke here).
So feminists have been trying to fix that. Whatever their results, it’s pretty hard to argue with their intentions. I’m not sure how you can rail against men for having beat up and held down women for eons and then rail against feminists for trying their best to fix it. It’s obviously an extremely complicated subject, and to expect feminists to get it perfectly right on what is essentially the first try is absurd.[/quote]
That is a fair point, and I don’t begrudge them for trying to do what’s right for women, but once it became obvious that it was causing more harm than good (IMO), then they should have reevaluated and changed course. They have been resolute in pushing their failed agenda, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process. I have a huge problem with that.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]…
The younger women are smart enough to look at the experiences of these women instead of following the rhetoric of the feminists who have destroyed the family unit, made women and children even more vulnerable, and denigrated the very important work that women have traditionally done. May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
At least the feminists are self-extinguishing as fewer of them have children; and when they do, it’s often one or (maybe) two. The feminist movement cannot die soon enough.[/quote]
Wow. I don’t know that I am anything that ends in -ist. I guess I’m somewhere between CA Renter and BG. I worked full time until I had kids, was a stay at home mom and now I’m a PT working mom and so far our family unit has not been destroyed. I am probably what would be considered highly educated (MS, JD) but my mind didn’t turn to mush when I was home with the kids and, frankly, I had a lot of fun with them. Sooner than I think, they will be at college and I want to be working when they are, as otherwise I will be bored and will fixate on whatever they are doing. They say I do that already. Live and let live – my favorite moms are the ones who are not sure whether they’ve taken the right path. The ones who are sure they are right always puzzle me.[/quote]
You and I are not far apart at all. I was also on a steep career trajectory and made it to corporate management before dropping back in order to fulfill other needs/desires. I plan to re-enter the workforce in a few years, too , if anyone is willing to hire a middle-aged woman who’s not been in the workforce for just over a decade — one of the main obstacles for women who want to “have it all.”
And you and I are from the ranks of the fortunate few these days, and it’s getting even more difficult for young women today to do what either of us are doing or hope to do. But there is no denying the fact that divorce rates are exceedingly high, and fatherless families/single motherhood is epidemic in many communities.
This is what I’m referring to when I say that feminists have destroyed the family unit and put women and children in an even more vulnerable state. And you know the poverty statistics where single mothers and their children are concerned.
“The rate of single motherhood, which has been steadily increasing since the 1940s, has skyrocketed in recent years, according to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau released on May 1st.
While the birth rate for single women has greatly increased across all demographics — according to the report, which is based on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the birth rate for single mothers in 2007 was 80 percent higher than it was in 1980, and 20 percent of that increase happened between 2002 and 2007 — the numbers are particularly high for recent mothers (mothers who gave birth in the previous 12 months) between age 20 and 24.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/single-motherhood-increases-census-report_n_3195455.html
This is what feminism has wrought. It is nothing short of a disaster, IMO.
-
AuthorPosts
